Luke Taylor

Party affiliation

Parliament's party history for this member: Liberal Democrat (4 Jul 2024 – present).

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 362

1. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Luke Taylor

   E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for bringing this important debate to the House. It is worth making it clear that I am a huge fan of e-bikes. I rode my e-cargo bike to the station this morning, and in term time I would have dropped my two boys off at school using the bike. I have covered more than 18,000 km in the last six years. Our discussion today should focus on illegal e-bikes and e-scooters, but we need to be clear that we support the contribution that e-bikes make to active travel, taking cars off our roads, and reducing emissions, congestion and road danger. I differ slightly from my hon. Friend, however, as I believe that e-scooters are far too dangerous to be considered for regulation and legislation. They do not in any way qualify as active travel. They should be banned or removed from our streets entirely. I have spoken repeatedly about the need for tougher regulation of illegally modified e-bikes. These vehicles plague the high street in Sutton, and sadly deter many local residents from visiting the shops that my town centre has to offer. Delivery drivers on e-bikes treat the stretch of Sutton high street like a racetrack. They rampage along pavements at speed, with no consideration for pedestrians around them. The nights are getting darker, but many ride without lights, endangering pedestrians and the riders themselves. My constituents should not have to spend their weekly shop looking over their shoulder, worried they might be mown down by a vehicle that should never have been on the road or the pavement in the first place. The dangers do not end when the bikes stop moving. E-bikes are causing fires across the capital. We saw that recently in Mitcham, where a fire ripped through homes, as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned. The increase in illegal e-bike conversions, fires and accidents on our streets is driven by two main causes: the sale of high-powered e-bikes like Sur-Rons, and the multimillion-pound delivery companies that incentivise riders to use faster vehicles but take no responsibility for ensuring that they are legal and being ridden legally. We Liberal Democrats want delivery platforms to be required to verify that bikes being used by riders are road legal. Regular checks should be made to ensure that illegally modified vehicles are not being used to complete food orders for pay. There must be clear consequences for companies that repeatedly fail to act to protect the public. Corporate giants of the gig economy world cannot continue to hide behind the self-employed status of their riders to seek impunity from responsibility. They already have the technology to track their drivers, identify them and verify that they are using the right accounts. They must be required to take reasonable steps to ensure that vehicles being used to make deliveries are legal.

   Hansard source
2. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Luke Taylor

   E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

   rose—

   Hansard source
3. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Luke Taylor

   Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

   I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace. I have met many stakeholders through the process of the Bill.

   Hansard source
4. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Luke Taylor

   Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

   It is a pleasure to serve in your presence, Mr Turner. As a vocal advocate of flying, it falls to me to acknowledge that, currently, flying is horrible, uncomfortable and stressful. On most occasions we arrive late, in a condition such that our initial reaction is to strip off all our clothes, shower and rid ourselves of the filth that we have been stewing in for hours in an aircraft. The fact that we all aspire to fly regularly shows that it is necessary, but there is an opportunity in the Bill to remove some of the stress, worry and discomfort in as minor a way as possible, to make the experience slightly less horrible. I will speak on amendment 25 and new clause 14, which I think are fair and proportionate attempts to reduce the stress and worry of the flying and airport experience in minor and sensible ways. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, I hope the Government see the wisdom of protecting parents and everybody else on an aircraft from the risk of an unaccompanied minor being seated next to a stranger. It is a reasonable expectation that someone should make a flight booking that covers themselves and their children, and that they should not be split to the four corners of the aircraft, forced to worry about persuading people to change seats to have the child under some level of control. For some parents that may be a blessing, and the thought of their seven-year-old sitting next to some poor soul at the back of the plane is attractive, but I think most of us agree that we should not subject random members of the public to that. Amendment 25 takes a reasonable and proportionate approach to address the issue. I am interested to hear from the Minister on the Government’s approach as, unless I have missed it, it does not currently appear in the Bill. We would be minded to withdraw the amendment if the reassurance from the Minister were sufficient, particularly regarding how an adult is a person aged 16 and over, and how an adult requiring care should also be covered.

   Hansard source
5. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Luke Taylor

   Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

   The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are particular booking sizes, seating arrangements and issues relating to the geometry of aircraft in respect of which conflicting groups may well mean that the mathematical problem is not solvable. There would need to be redrafting to exclude those occasions, so that we do not subject airlines to fines for failure to achieve impossible requirements. The goal of amendment 25, which relates to new clause 14, is to stop predatory charging for seat selection to avoid families and carers being split up and to give groups, families and carers confidence that they will be sitting together on the aircraft. My hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage made the point that assigned seating is relevant to air travel and not to other modes of transport because it is different in an aircraft, where assigned seating is particularly important to ensure that passengers are in the right part of the cabin, to be able to identify passengers with allergies or meal preferences, or because of things like weight allowances. The amendment reflects the need to protect the passenger—the consumer—as the Bill has rightly been introduced to do, in a proportionate way. New clause 14 relates to the fact that passengers can sometimes choose a particular seat, whether in an exit row, by a window, or at the front or back of the plane, perhaps because they want to make a connection and so be able to leg it off the flight at the very first opportunity when they land. Airlines may choose to offer that product, and that is okay. However, what they cannot do is make families and carers pay that premium fee to ensure that they are able to support loved ones and, potentially, to protect other passengers from their eight-year-old flicking his porridge or scrambled eggs across the aisle. Amendment 25, together with new clause 14, would prevent that. It is entirely within an airline’s ability to issue automatic refunds when services are not delivered. The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston argued that airlines might not be able to deliver due to the geometry or combination of passenger preferences, which is okay, but on occasions when an equipment change or groups mean that passengers have to be moved and the product they paid for is not available, the refund should be automatic. I agree with the premise that a new clause or amendment must be proved to be necessary—this new clause is necessary because the systems are able to do that today, but it does not happen. It is down to the consumer to chase an airline for a refund. They have to go through the rigmarole of emailing and potentially deploying their AI refund bot to get that fee returned. Depending on the Minister’s response to amendment 25 and new clause 14, we will choose whether to push them to a vote or withdraw them.

   Hansard source
6. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Luke Taylor

   Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

   I thank the Minister for his words, particularly on new clause 13. We very much welcome the Government’s movement in the other place to introduce greater protections for disabled airline passengers following pressure from a cross-party group of lords. The removal of the compensation cap for damaged wheelchairs on domestic flights is a great step forward for accessibility. For a disabled person, a wheelchair is not merely luggage; it is a vital extension of their body and their independence. I am glad, though, to pick up the noble Baroness Brinton’s amendment on wheelchair passports. She has been a strong advocate for accessibility for many years, and we are glad to support her in her campaign. I invite all Members to read the exchanges in the Lords to see and understand the lived experience—I am sure that we will hear some of that here too—of disabled passengers struggling with complex, unwieldy and challenging circumstances at various airports around the country. I am glad that we are getting a focus on that here. Over the past few years, the Department for Transport has discussed creating wheelchair passports, which would smooth the journey, with one brief check at check-in to ensure that the wheelchair—and, if relevant, the battery—and the passport match. Once someone had such a passport, the details could be in the airport’s system and the airline’s system forever. However, the new clause would make it clear that the Secretary of State has to work with the International Air Transport Association, and the other countries and the airlines that are part of that organisation, to make this happen, because it will not work if only the UK does it. I note that IATA’s international guidance already provides for a mobility aid passport, but it is self-evident that that is not sufficiently well understood or implemented. The Minister talked about a mobility pack and an investigation that is being undertaken to design appropriate measures. I encourage him to refer back to the IATA mobility aid passport to understand how that can be incorporated, improved and strengthened, and to work with airlines and international organisations to make sure that the aims of the new clause are reflected in the lived experience of those who, time and again, when they approach an airline check-in desk, have to struggle through the same set of questions and the same arguments, and—again, I reflect on the experiences that were shared in the Lords—pull out the guidance that they have printed and explain it. That is just not acceptable. Whether it is through regulation, through the wording of customer protections or by making it incumbent on airlines and ground handlers to understand and implement these measures, we all need to make sure that the airline industry is implementing and improving things for those who rely on mobility aids, so that they are able to experience flying as miserably as the rest of us.

   Hansard source
7. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Luke Taylor

   Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

   We accept that huge steps have been taken. As somebody who has particular experience, does the hon. Member see the challenge around training airline check-in staff and ground handlers? What does he see as the way to achieve the aims and goals that we have? We can talk about regulation and legislation until the cows come home, as we are paid to do, but how does he see implementation on the ground, as someone who lives in this world and struggles with different airlines, some of which implement measures well, while others do not? I am interested to hear how he suggests we break through that and feed that back to the working groups so that it can really understand the trick to this.

   Hansard source
8. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Luke Taylor

   Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

   The hon. Gentleman has invited me on to the point we raise in the new clause, about the need to work with IATA to ensure that this is part of either the mobility aid passport or a separate wheelchair passport structure, so that it protects passengers when they fly both from and to UK and EU airports. A theme to pick up on later is that it is common for aviation to be asymmetrical and that covering flights between different jurisdictions is difficult. Therefore, working with international organisations, and being rule makers and influencers rather than sitting back and being rule takers, is the right way to proceed.

   Hansard source
9. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Luke Taylor

   Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [LORDS] (Second sitting)

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. On new clause 6, I note the Minister’s comments about the study to understand the level of public transport provision and charges at UK airports, which we obviously welcome. It is worth reflecting on the comments from a number of Government Members that a charge to encourage passengers to use public transport to access an airport, to reduce emissions, congestion and the impact on airport communities, is unfair when a public transport option does not exist for that airport. It is contradictory and confusing, and it undermines the case and the consensus that we must build that aviation is good but the impacts of aviation travel—be they emissions, disruption for nearby communities, or noise—must be mitigated and addressed. As part of the review, I encourage the Minister and his officials, and those who are undertaking the study, to come up with a much more nuanced approach to the allowable limits for charges related to public transport provision to the airports in question. I believe we will push new clause 6 to a vote, primarily to make the point that a particular charge level cap is appropriate, but I implore the Minister to look into that nuance. It is absolutely right that we encourage modal share and push passengers to use sustainable methods of transport to get to the airport; however, where airports use a charge to increase their revenue that conflicts with the goals at alternative airports, where it is levied entirely to manage ground transportation demand and the impact on local residents. Airport charges, it is worth noting, are not the norm across Europe. They are definitely not the norm across the world. It is our model of airport ownership that means that this has become an additional fee that, as in the two examples given by Government Members, is unavoidable. It becomes effectively an essential fee. There is an argument that suggests using public hire vehicles to travel to an airport reduces the impact on roadways because instead of dropping off and travelling home empty, or parking, that vehicle is then available for picking up passengers and returning them to another location. It should be considered that there is a possibility to have different charges for different vehicle types—public hire taxis, for example. It is not that we are against the principle; there just needs to be a much more considered approach to how it is structured. Finally, as stated in the new clause, we believe that £5 is the right level for the charge to be set at, considering all the various cost of living challenges and the lack of alternatives in many places. We have to see that accompanied by investment in active travel and public transport infrastructure at airports, particularly those outside London, where there is lacking provision at present. Hopefully the Government are able to pull those two aspects together to balance that investment in alternatives with the nudge of that charge pushing passengers into alternative modes.

   Hansard source
10. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Luke Taylor

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [LORDS] (Second sitting)

    Amendments 21 and 20 are alternative approaches to a safeguard, as the shadow Minister observed. Our preferred amendment is 21 because it gives the oversight back to the Secretary of State to confirm that that minor classification is appropriate. We prefer amendment 21 and will hopefully persuade the Government to accept it, in which case amendment 20 will be superseded.

    Hansard source

2024 General Election: Sutton and Cheam

Election result on Parliament's site

Parliamentary career

Career on Parliament's site

Published contact details

Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site